Justice Committee on May 20th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Monsieur Fortin.

We'll go to Mr. Anandasangaree.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to propose a subamendment. I think that's been shared with the members.

I echo fully what Mr. Garrison has indicated with respect to simple possession. I know we want to support Canadians who may have been impacted by charges or convictions of that sort. I think it's important to allow for pathways in order for people, many of whom are young, to be able to continue their lives without a serious interruption, whether it be with respect to jobs, engagement within the community or any other place where a criminal record check is required.

We've just changed the language slightly. It does not in any way change the intent or substance of the amendment that's been put forward by Mr. Garrison.

We hope members can support this. It's a small step, and I believe it's a modest step toward supporting those who have had primarily addictions and possession charges in their lives.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you.

We have a Liberal subamendment to NDP amendment 3. It has been circulated.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next we have Bloc amendment 6. It's on page 70 in our package.

Monsieur Fortin, would you like to say a few things?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In testimony before the committee, one of our witnesses, Dr. Robert, told us about a problem situation for those working with people who have drug addictions. These workers often end up having small amounts of drugs in their possession, not for the purposes of using or trafficking them themselves, but simply because, in the course of their duties, they need to handle them.

Dr. Robert referred to individuals who want to stop using but are unable to do so while in the possession of, say, a bag of cocaine. They sometimes ask their social workers to take the drugs away to help them stop doing them. In these situations, the workers take the substances and hand them over to the relevant doctor, dispensary or their supervisor, so they may be disposed of according to the law.

In these cases, workers might be reluctant to get involved for fear of being accused of drug possession themselves. The Bloc Québécois motion seeks to avoid this situation with an “exception for service providers, whereby no social worker, medical professional or other service provider in the community who, in the course of their duties, possesses a substance included in Schedule I, II or III” commits an offence.

Of course, we’re not talking about workers having these drugs on them on weekends while, say, catching a show, but rather of their being in possession of drugs as part of their duties.

The service provider’s actions would not amount to an offence under subsection 4(1). I consider this to be a useful and critical provision for individuals working with those who have substance use problems.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Monsieur Fortin.

We have Mr. Anandasangaree, and then Mr. Brock.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we are in agreement with the spirit of this amendment, although this does fall under the defence of innocent possession, so we don't believe it's necessary per se to have it in the legislation, but we are, in principle, supportive.

However, I do have language that would strengthen the intention put forward by Mr. Fortin. That was circulated earlier, and I move the subamendment to amend the amendment put forward by Mr. Fortin in BQ-6.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Okay. I believe everyone has that.

Mr. Brock, do you want to comment before this or do you want to do it after, because there's a subamendment now?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

The subamendment is not going to change my position on it. To a certain degree, I echo my friend's previous comments with respect to whether this amendment is necessary.

We have concepts in criminal law called actus reus and mens rea. Mens rea is the criminal intent to commit the offence of possession. With the objective sought by the Bloc with this particular amendment, and a further subamendment by the Liberal Party.... In my view, we already have a built-in safety valve in the Criminal Code and, in my opinion, a built-in defence. I don't think it's necessary. I don't think we need to rewrite a century's worth of jurisprudence. Those are my thoughts.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

We will now move to vote on the Liberal subamendment to the Bloc amendment 6.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 20 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nay 4)

Next is the new clause 21, proposed by the Green Party amendment 45. I'm going to rule this inadmissible.

Next, we have Liberal amendment 3, which has not been moved. If nobody moves it, I'll go on to the next one.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I move the Liberal amendment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Okay, Liberal amendment 3 is moved; however, I'm going to deem it inadmissible as it goes beyond the scope of the bill.

Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order.

My apologies for being distracted, I was reading too many documents at once.

You said that amendment PV‑45 was out of order.

What about amendment LIB‑3? We didn't vote on that. Was it also out of order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

That's correct. It was also out of order. It was beyond the scope.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Next we have Conservative amendment 15 on page 73 of the package.

Mr. Moore, would you like to say anything on this?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

On amendment 15, this would require—and this exists in a lot of Criminal Code legislation—a review of the legislation on the third anniversary of the day on which it comes into force. This would allow us as parliamentarians to have an understanding of the impact on our communities of the passage of Bill C-5, should it pass.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Mr. Anandasangaree, go ahead.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Moore, I think that's something we would support. We would look for a review on the fourth year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Mr. Anandasangaree, are you proposing a subamendment to that?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

I move to delete the word “third” and to put “fourth”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Mr. Fortin, do you want to speak to this now, or do you want to speak to it after?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I would have suggested the “fifth” anniversary, but I'm willing to agree to the “fourth”, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Monsieur Fortin.

We shall vote on the Liberal subamendment to Conservative amendment 15—

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Chair, I'm getting a major echo back. I don't know if the rest of you are.

I could accept the subamendment as a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

You're probably getting an echo because somebody's mike might have been left on and therefore echoing back. Are you still hearing the echo?